% f o* o 

V^V 'V 7 ^-'/ v-^V °* • 









o > 




:^ 













*° 'tiki 









a v 



«. s* «^ik- % * v •;%>';•. % ** vise 



■ 4 V^> '°\^7!V^ 



SPEECH 



HON. T. L. HARRIS, OF ILLINOIS, 



KANSAS AND OTHER POLITICAL QUESTIONS, 



AND IX REPLT TO 



MESSRS. FOSTER, OF GEORGIA, AND NORTON, OF ILLINOIS. 



DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AUGUST 9, 1S56. 



WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED BY J. T. & LEM. TOWERS. 

1856. 



/ 



IpfSSS^wlrt 6111 ^ L iT lf ' (Mr - FoSTEE >) bas claimed *« to 
ST ,, aeraas^a bill— the sound democrats of the North on everv occa- 

ueiea Dy their midnight assassinations, and in their places were put those men 
^c. are designated here as Republicans, and whose ascendency and poweTintht 
House gives the gentleman such fearful forbodings. And vet theTent eman 

Sends w Et c ^ witl ; °? ^(^ mh ™ numb - - «1 CSrS 

ill "rac Tfrom ^hi,n or f, 1S W ^ ha 7 t Utchei ' 6d them ' aild ifc C01 " e3 with an 

m lace hom him, or from any other of those who act or have acted with him 

W s r hadTnof V ***/ ^J"? ™ A ™™ numerot he^f him ' 
at ' i ' ?• • b ° en for the affi liation of his own party commenced in 

Sff; T ginning to this hour-except here and there-wi h the Republican 
party, the Democratic party would have been as powerful in this Sou S 
No trt W gl ' e n T de ? that S' eutlem ^ to show £ one instance in the whole 

StititT wa , s ruui ^ ng as a candidate for a seat » sz 

gentltrlelongs ^ "* Pei ' S18tent ° PI)osit - ° f tbe P art ? *> *«* the 

H^&fflWlSf the gentleman-that in the State of Ohio, Mr. 

T m ol . ' Day ' Mr ' Bllss - Mr - Watson, Mr. Giddines Mr Wade 

eTected r ' Stant0n - E0De of wh ™ »«« Americans but all anti-ASc^-wte 

Mr. HARRIS. That is dodging the question, Mr. Chairman. Did the gentle- 
man s own party run any man in opposition to these men ? Not in one Sk 
instance. Did his party vote for any man in opposition to these men^ Not in 
Slhnl^f^ But in every district in tbelhole North, ^hSe menfwho 
hem g J? l\'T \° f f 0wn r rt ?' COuld lie in t^ same truckle bed with 
*™ f ^ + , T to g. ether . and propagate their infamous party power were 

SSSS&^ffiSS?^' "V 1 in eyery instance wbere SS3EKE 

crat, supporting the Nebraska bill and supporting national principles were on- 
posing hem, they were as bitterly assailed to advance the in erests o 'such ml 
as Bidding, Wane, and he others whom the gentleman lias named who he 
says are not members of the American party, as though they were. Th £ Le- 
nient, instead of helping the gentleman, only makes the case ten time wSe 
because it shows that his dark lantern friends were not so muc Sent In S 
vancing the interests of their own organization, as in aiding the Black Repub- 
licans, and in striking down the national men of the North P 

Mr. MOORE. The only reason why, in 1854, the Democratic party did not 
receive the support of the American party was, that the Democratic candidates 
fought the American party, and left this solitary question entirely out of issue 

Mr. HARRIS. Worse and worse ! The gentleman from Ohio, (Mr. Moore ) 
who is of the same party of the gentleman from Georgia, (Mr Foster, idoe.not 
deny that the Democratic candidates were sound an! naLnal upT htques- 
tion, which has m its solution the very existence of the Government, am? yet 
upon his petty ephemeral, oath-sustained policy, he was willing to s Whir 
these national Democrats, and send a parcel of abolitionists and freesoilei- here 
m preference to such men because these abolitionists and freesoilers did not op 
pose, or did in fact favor, his Know Nothing doctrines. P 

, n^f'tf °*W\ FT thC ". ent | eman hold that Congress has power to legislate 
upon the subject of slavery in the territories \ ^o'siaie 

« Jf? - IA S IS n + T 5 e „g en «eman jumps from one point to another so rapidly 
that it is difficult to follow him, and these questions put so constantly to eVer? 
member who rises to the floor remind me of an old aphorism-that "examina- 
tions are always dangerous, for the greatest fool may ask a question that the 
wisest man cannot answer." But I will answer him openly, and now. I deny 
the existence of that power, and ever expect to. And I deny also that \\i 
people of a territory have any power to legislate upon that subject, ox any 
other, except in conformity with the Constitution of the United States T* 
his extent they have it and no further, and there the Kansas-Nebraska bill 
lets it rest — as it should do. 

Individual opinions as to the power of the people of the Territories to legislate 
upon the subject of slavery are of very little consequence. Of what importance 
» it, that men, outside of the Territories, entertain one view or the other* DemS 



crate, "Whigs, Americans— men of all parties differ in opinion upon this question 
of power— men in the North differ, and so do men in the South. If the people of 
the Territory have the power under the Constitution, they can exercise it in- 
dependent of their organic law. If not, no law can confer it upon them. Law- 
yers differ as to the construction of a law, that does not weaken its force. Men 
differ as to the construction of the Constitution itself, but that is no reason for 
assailing the instrument. Divines differ as to the true import of texts of holy 
writ, but that does not impair our confidence in its authenticity, or its binding 
obligations. The gentleman is satisfied with the Kansas-Nebraska bill, so am I. 
Were I a citizen of a territory, if I thought proper to exercise legislative power 
upon the question of slavery, either one way or the other, I should do so. It 
others were dissatisfied with it, let them go to court, and whatever might be the 
result, every true Democrat would abide the decision of the highest judicial tri- 
bunal of the country. 

But, "paulo majora canimus." My colleague (Mr. Norton) commenced his 
remarks by saying, that Illinois had been silent upon the slavery question or 
the Kansas troubles, during the present session, and that it was due that, before 
the session closed, the voice of Illinois should be heard. "Well, sir, the voice of 
Illinois has been heard, at least the voiee of that portion of Illinois which my 
colleague represents, but who they are is somewhat difficult to say ; his course 
here since we assembled has been a peculiar one, satisfactory to himself no doubt, 
and that is something, but it seems he has not gone far enough, or else too far, 
in chasing the woolly phantoms "of the hour, to meet the approval even of his 
own party at home; for at their late convention at which he was a candidate 
for renomination, and balloted for, he was beaten by the worst abolitionist in 
Illinois. As he is now repudiated by the very men who sent him here, it is 
hardly proper to say he expresses their yoice. Whose voice then does the gentle- 
man express? Certainly not the voice of the party that has cast him aside. 
Certainly not the voice of the old line Whigs, for they bolted and put in nomi- 
nation a better man. Not the Democracy, for they never utter such sentiments 
But the voice of those whom he professes to represent has been heard, and 
what does it say ? My colleague says that the Missouri restriction was proposed 
by an Illinois Senator, and that that restriction gave peace and quiet to the 
country ; and he further says that the repeal of that restriction was proposed by 
an Illinois Senator, and that the repeal has brought division and difficulty, and 
he would have us believe that it has been like 



" Achilles wrath ; to Greeks the direful spring 
Of woes unnumbered." 



Now sir, I take issue with my colleague on both his allegations. I deny that 
his boasted prohibition of slavery in 1820, brought peace to the country, and 1 
deny that its repeal has produced, as a legitimate result, any trouble or difficulty 
whatever. I assert, and challenge and defy contradiction, that until Rufus King, 
and his federal allies of the fifteenth Congress, attempted to contract and regu- 
late the domestic institutions of the people upon the subject of slavery there 
never was, from the adoption of the Constitution down to that hour, any difficiilty 
among the people of the United States upon that subject. If there was, when 
was it, when did it occur? No man can tell. My colleague cannot tell. The 
strife then arose because a set of federal politicians departing from _the uniform 
practice in the legislation of the country, refused admission to the State ot Mis- 
souri, because she would not shape her laws and constitution to suit th views 
of those who had no right to interfere with them. That very act was tyrannical 
and revolutionary. It was resisted by Mr Clay, General Harrison and Mr. 
Pinckney, and the whole body of national Democratic statesmen then in Con- 
gress. Still the opposition in the House then as now bent on party power, re- 
fused to yield to argument, and by their force of numbers held to their unjusti- 
fiable course, and tL countuy was brought then, by ^e- fa^hca gn^ 
power, to the verge of disunion. The advocates of this restrict £P.™J£X" 
became alarmed, tnd cast about for some means of escape ^om the toim the> 
had raised. Then it was that a member of the House ol Representatives fun 
New York first proposed the transfer of the restriction upon the State to a i e 
striction upon the territory. It at first met with no favor i^ariy t£ ' a £er. But 
the national men desired to get Missouri into the Union. They ^had fought he 
battle but were overpowered by numbers in the House. The r f tnct.on xq,on 
the territory was proposed to them as terms for their surrender, and they wen 



c 6 

;u:cepted. Tlicre never Was any of that spirit entering into the arrangement 
which could give it the character of a compromise. The North said, if you will 
surrender to us the territory north of 36° 30' we will cease our warfare upon 
'he people and State of Missouri, and 6he may come into the Union without let 
or hinderance. The South said, you began this war without any just cause, yon 
'iave prosecuted it in violation of the Constitution, you now propose, men of the 
North, to cease your warfare upon the people of Missouri, and take a restriction 
igainst slavery over an unoccupied country. The treaty of 1S03 says, youBhall 
•rot do it. The Constitution says you shall not do it. But if you will be con- 
sent with that, and let us alone, take it, we will cease our opposition, surrender 
.jpon your terms. We do it to save the country, and the terms must be kept 
vith fidelity and honor. Thus was the capitulation agreed upon. 

But the very next year, when Missouri came, with constitution in hand, and 
isked to be admitted upon the terms of the treaty, the same men who made 
'.t, broke their faith, violated their pledge of honor, and renewed the war. Then 
it was, that Mr. Clay proposed his Compromise of 1821, which has b«en con- 
founded with the act of 1820; and under Mr. Clay's compromise, which had no 
reference to slavery, Missouri was admitted into the Union. Thus was thii 
treaty violated the year after its ratification. It was violated when Arkansas 
ipplied for admission into the Union; it was broken in upon by the annexation 
of the northern part of Missouri to that State, and finally disregarded, over 
aimed, and superseded by the legislation of I860. Now look upon the agita- 
r.ion of this country for the last twenty-five years prior to the passage of the 
'^ausas-Nebraska bill, two yeaps ago, and say that there has been none upon 
the subject of slavery if you can. You have had mob.? and riots, and twenty- 
drst rules, and Wilmot provisos, and a constant succession of uproars upon 
slavery. It is true, that in the territory covered by the restriction of 1820, and 
-vest of Missouri, you have had no difficulty, because no legislation has been had 
concerning it ; but it is equally true, that in relation to territory about which 
legislation has been had, since then, in Arkansas, Texas, New Mexico, Utah, 
'California, and even Oregon to some extent, you have had controversy and ex- 
citement. I say, then, that it is not true that the Missouri restriction brought 
xiacc and quiet to the country. 

The other assertion of my colleague, that an Illinois Senator introduced tha 
neasure for its repeal, and that the legitimate consequence of that act has been 
dissension and strife, is equally unfounded. Can my colleague give one reason 
or one fact to sustain that assertion! Have any troubles arisen in Nebraska 
under the same law as exists for Kansas? And why has it not resulted in as 
ojreat harmony in Kansas as in Nebraska? It is because the abolitionists, seeing 
ill hope of further agitation gone, by the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, 
if it should be left to work out its fair results, determined to get up a war upon 
f.lie borders of Missouri — enlist the sympathies of the North in war, and thus 
i >rolong their political lives by feeding upon the peaee and quiet of the country. 

The ink was not dry upon the signature of the bill, before the slavery agita- 
hionists commenced plotting to prevent a quiet and peaceable settlement of 
.Cansas. Combinations of capital were formed, under the auspices of the aboli- 
tionists, to carry bodies of settlers of their own stripe into that territory. They 
passed on through the State of Missouri, and there made their threats and 
boasts that they intended, after shaping affairs in the territory, to run off the 
-slaves in that State. The people of Missouri, living upon the immediate border 
>f Kansas, attracted to its soil from their avocations, also pressed into the terri- 
tory. Still no difficulties occurred, and even the correspondents of their papers 
landed the kindness of the Missourians. [See Evening Post, July 15, 1854.] 
This would not do; strife is the subsistence of this kind of fanaticism, and strife 
nust be engendered. A change of tactics became necessary. The New York 
Tribune, the Post, and Times, and all the leading papers of that sort, began to 
hreaten and boast what their free State organization would do with the Mis- 
.•ourians and the pro-slavery men. On the 1st of August, 1854, the Post de- 
clared that "slavery will be overlaid and smothered by freedom, if the plana 

•VLKEADY FOKMKH HE UALF EXECUTED." 

Now, let it be borne in mind that no outbreak had occurred; everything wa§ 
joing on smoothly; the territory was filling up, and all were willing to leave 
future legislation to a fair expression of the popular will. But here came the 
umounccment of tlans and plots "already formed," which, if but "half execu- 



ted." was to overlay and smother out slavery; not by a fair expression of the 
people but "by plans already formed." On the 3d of August, the same print 
Wan article headed "When and whskl tite fust blood will bk sued? 
«howine that there was a determination then to have bloodshed m Kansas, and 
makinea prediction with the sole view to accomplish that result Then began 
the arming of emigrants— the organization of secret and sworn lodges— all 
under the general management of Robinson, who, it is stated in the Tribune of 
November 80, 1854, - was a Garrison abolitionist." kw, I put it tc » any can- 
did man to say. if with these movements so begun and so heralded, the people 
of Missouri would not, nay, ought not, to have become deeply interested, if not 
exoited, in the movements of these crusaders! They commenced a counter 
•migrant movement, and being near the spot, they sent in the largest number, 
2nd the plans were not "half executed." Then the cry began of outragea- 
torder iaos-arsons-robberies-murders-all charged upon the pro-»larery 
men or the Missourians, while their own people were perfectly honest . pious, 
*nd harmless. No unprejudiced mind believes these stal emeiits ■ and whatev er 
Tas subscqutntly occurred, or whoever may be to blame, the ^g^^ 
«auseof it all is clearly traceable to the emigrant aid ™ l **"? f *£™^ 
setts and New York, and to the abolition organs who were acting ^J th ^ 
to promote disorder and outrage, and then turn it to political effect. This was 
the origin of all the trouble in Kansas, and it has no just or legitimate connec- 
tion with any particular feature of the Kansas-Nebraska bill. 

Limy collogue makes a charge. He says, "Icharge that the Missoun 
Compromise was repealed by false pretences, that it was passed for the purpose 
ofTarAdng slavery into these territories, and that the Democratic party has 
Thanged front sincl its passage." To each one of these charges I respond, and 

"Uis^t U-ufinttthat the Nebraska bill was passed by false pretences. 
Mv colleague has made the assertion, but he has adduced no fact to sustain it. 
There wei-e no pretences made, nor was there occasion for any It became ne- 
cessary to organize the territory embraced by Kansas and Nebraska, and a bh 
wSroduced into the Senate on the 4th of January, 1850, from the Commit- 
tee on Territories, for that purpose, following the precise language of the terri- 
torial bills of 1850. On the 16th of January, Mr. Dlxon, a Senator from Ken- 
tucky gave notice of his intention to offer an amendment to the bill providing 
haShf restriction of 1820 should not apply to the territory described in tb« 
bill On the 17th, Mr. Sumner gave notice that he would offer »n amend- 
ment to continue the restriction upon the territory; and, on the 19tb, with- 
out one thin- being incorporated in the bill relating to slavery, except the 
Unguage contained^ the* Utah and New Mexico bilk the abolition con- 
federates of Congress, headed by Chase, Sumner, Giddings, Wade, Gerrett 
?m th and DeWift, issued their manifesto, declaring that the bill propW to 
"cancel the Missouri compact— to violate a sacred p edge-to betrayp™ 
riXs-that it was part and parcel of an atrocious plot to convert a vast terri- 
tory into « , dreary region of despotism inhabited by masters and slaves, Th« 
S lTdLlaredfas my colleague now does, that it was to be passed undei 
fXe pretences These declarations, made at a time when not one word was in 
he bd about'the Missouri Compromise, were so many shameless falsehood* 
known to be such by their authors when made. It was not then proposed to 
Se to the EouJi Compromise, and vet these "false pre tonces," according 
to this circular, were even then set up U the friends of the t all. Did a bill 
following exactly the precedents of the Compromise of 1850, become a billot 
-fiSe pfeSSI I? " K not, how can my colleague say that the Missouri Com- 
promise was repealed under "false pretences? 

Mr NORTON. Does my colleague wish an answer? 

Mr! HARRIS. If my colleague desires to answer, I will give him an oppor- 

^Mr^NOItTON. I never interrupt any gentleman unless specially appealed 
to Now sir I say that I never have sent out any circulars su^h as those to 
Such SaJagi refers I had ^^^^^SSS^t^tE 
Sy^tcS^Swk^^ ASUgagg^S- 



8 

ence, under the operation of the restriction of 1820. It was accompanied by 
an elaborate report by Judge Douglas, in which he states that he has expressly 
avoided any attempt to change that restriction for the purpose of preventing 
an excitement like that of 1S50. Afterwards, the bill was thrown aside, and 
the bill introduce.! by the Senator from Kentucky, (Mr. Dixqx.) substituted for 
it. which did repeal that measure. But, sir, so far as that circular was con- 
cerned, I repeat that I had nothing to do with it. I did not belong to the 
party that issued it. I was a Whig. 

Mr. HARRIS. My time will permit me to yield to my colleague no further. 
Instead of replying to the question put to him, he fizzes off into the most excited 
rant and declamation. He says he had no connection with the men who issued 
that circular. He wishes to repudiate the action of that party, to ignore the 
declaration wliich they made. Knowing the position into which it would bring 
him, he endeavours to impress us with the belief that he stood afar off and aloof 
from the leaders of his party. He announces a declaration that Mr. Douglas. 
did not wish to repeal the Missouri Compromise of 1320. Will he give the reason 
why it is so ? He did not wish to repeal it, because the bill, by the terms in 
which it was introduced, ; effected the same purpose. He was disposed to let the 
hill follow the precedents of the Utah and New Mexico bills, which allowed the 
>f those Territories to legislate on all rightful subjects of legislation con- 
sistent with the Constitution of United States. The Kansas and Nebraska bill 
as first introduced, did no more and no less — it did, in the shape in which it 
passed, no more and no less. The amendment subsequently introduced, did not 
change its character; and such was the understanding of every man who voted 
for it. It was perhaps to avoid ambiguity, and leave nothing to construction, 
that it was thought proper to express in terms, what without them would have 
been the legal effect. The question which I put to my colleague was, how the 
bill was passed under "false pretenses," and that question he has not found it 
convenient to answer. 

The gentleman says the repeal of the Missouri Compromise was the cause of 
the present difficulty. How does he show it? Has not the party to which he is 
attached been agitating the public mind on the same question of slavery for the 
last twenty years? Has not the country, bv their machinations, been again 
and again driven to the same extremity in which it now is? Was not this so 
before there was a repeal of the Missouri Compromise? No, sir, that repeal as 
he call3 it, was not the cause of the difficulty. The cause is that there is a party 
seeking for political power, and determined to have it at any hazard. Mr. Jef- 
ferson, said, that those who seized on the Missouri question did it as a mere 
pretext for political power. So it is with those who seize on the question of its 
repeal It is all "false pretence" on the part of those with whom my collegue 
acts. Not so with the Democratic party and the friends of the Nebraska-Kan- 
sas bill. Their reasons are upon the record. They are clear, and easily under- 
stood. There are no "false pretences" about them. 

My colleague said the bill was passed to establish slavery; he can find noth- 
ing to support that declaration. It was passed neither to establish nor exclude 
slavery, but to carry out a just principle; and when the gentleman says that the 
Democratic party and the party of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, North or South, 
for I think I can speak for the party in the South as well as that of the North, 
passed the bill for the extension of slavery, he speaks what is not true. He can 
find no man from the North or South who will sustain him in the assertion, 
('•not one," "not one," from voices all around the Hall.) Therefore, when he 
says that I, or anybody else, or any party, advocated the bill on the ground that 
it would "extend slavery," the declaration ought to stick in his throat. But to 
go back for a moment ; my colleague says, Judge Douglas, in his report, ex- 
pressed his objections to repealing in terms the Missouri restriction, because it. 
might produce excitement. If my colleague has read that report, he will find 
that it contains an express declaration that the Nebraska bill is a literal adop- 
tion of the enactments of 1850; and that the measures of 1S50, "rest upon the 
following propositions: " 

First: That all questions pertaining to slavery in the Territories and in the new States to be 
formed therefrom, are to be left to the decision of the people residing therein, through their ap- 
propriate Representatives, to be chosen by them for that purpose." 

Now here is all there is in the Kansas-Nebraska bill, when it became a law — 
and this was not only contemplated in the original bill, but so avowed in the re- 



port mat could be more open, plain, and explicit? And yet ny eoB 
'SSfSGS* 1^ SuR 5S»1*W» pa^d the »«, «*? 







called Abolitionists. (See Ho. journal, Illinois, p. 123, ISol.) ;: . ; 

Mr KQ»TON. When mv colleague says those fourwere called Ab... ..... 

I have to say in reply, that'the term .-as never applied to me. 1 1* a nig. 
a Henry Clay Whig. TTor^dnot 

Mr. HARRIS. That is about all I "P.ected from my coUeague^ H-£«£ 
C et up and fly into r*] hs dies .and callhimseh a Henrygay ^g^ ^^ 

hearted Henry Clav would have spurned such a Wtag J^^J^ and 
(Loud applause.) Any man that *£*™SJ&££fb£ S*eW 
claim to have done so on the ground h, w b \™£ ™™i5 have ***&& 
of Henry Clay pointed at hnn -^h scorn. JJr ggSSaipU 
him in an instant He would have fled from the P"-«m« c i 

by a single look. But my co }*^« ™fJ^ ff **2* £*£ Clay Whurs who 
Solution because he was a Henry Clay ^_2lR£rf2 olden time, 
voted for it: I can read then- names. They ™e W ^- 01 Some of 

Here is a list of them, and I want to put th«. ■ iuM- on ^ ^ record^ ^ 
them may have strayed off with my colleague, ^but *£™*°/ doof ^ the 
acting with the Democratic party, or at J***** 1 "*-£* % heir names: 
mongrel herd into which my colleague ha, grayed Her. a., tne 
*lfr»*~Uaf«rti» « popular s^rei^u" principle, in ISol, in tlu l.hno, 

Adams, of Whiteside ; Allan, of Henry; Arms, of Knos : Beekman, jf 
Breekenridge. of Sangamon; Brewer of Mo^^^.Br^^M-, 
Edwards. , f Madison ; Emerson, of M«on, Hangwn, jf^am . 

that restriction. - . . ■ 1 1 . 

The Democrats who voted for the resolution are as ^^""j^ . 
1UC ^ „ , t, tt;^. "RUVelv of Efnneham; Breese. «">t 

Bailey, of Edgar: Barnett, of De Witt Blately. « ttnng ^ 

Clinton; Burke, of Macoupin; Ca dwell, of GaUatm Ca.ey 
lin, of Haneoek; Davia. °$^£?lJ^J^%*ZZ\ Gash, of 
Edwards, of Sangamon; Bw, <* ?gJ*fu^ U 'J A . Vima . Howard, of Jo 
Wayne; Hall, of Kane; Hise. of La baUe Hobb. ^-V*! Fulton : Morton. 
Daviess; Hnsron. of M.^^h; Lrn^ey^Fu^. L • ;; « ^ ^ 

of White: Murphy, of Perry : ^ J^^uieTof Monroe; Randall, 




Pembertc 
of Will; ! 
of Union ; ~ 

of Henderson ; Winters, of Greene „„-„.♦* <ince swerved from the faith they 
If there is a single one of these Democrat ? ince *™ „ e \he raV5 Bpon that 
then professed I am not aware ot it. And ^%™™ ^em what you 
resolution, and a notable ^SS^ 7 ^^^!^ or Democrat, 
please _'- abolitionists,' "frf" 3 ** v? r W of Will" Swan, of Lake ; :L- 
Adams, of Kane ; Gage, of Mcllenry j Nortea, of wm, 



10 



they are, "look at 'em." My colleague and three more ! And yet my colleatrxw 

SSL H ^ % ^ *?* Sir ' ° n tbe 29tb of J-u ai yf 18 oX 
ay introduced his Compromise resolutions in the Senate. Here are three of 



them: 



f^imtfon cl't^es lo ^fsfiEfhe^tate of Ma^JP S^S**" 1 ° f Co,umbia whUst "*< 
out the consent of the neonlo of tho T»ut^ » ai 7 ) lan '?' jnthpnt the consent of that State, with- 
She slaves within the iSet! ^ 8Ild ™ th ° Ut jUSt com P e ^ation to the owners of 

V^^i^^^f^ti,^^ °«8*t * be made ^ law, according to the re- 

U!e slav, , 1 n^States g but ,h a a t S thP SZf t0 proWbit , 0r res,rict the trade in sla "s between 

mother tjz ifesaH? --b susstffir brought from one ^ 

w °J } et ™ test by the record the ^luggery of my colleague On the 

'nh 7 not LegiS'uJe 8 ' 1 ' ** ""J*" 8 re *° lu!io!1 ™ -*«* S adoption in the 

£>»£ SBS :?.feSKSSS-S o? S 

Upon the passage of this resolution mv colleague voted "no" and vet be 
pretends that he was a good Clay Whig! 'Heave? save the mark! J 

Black KSSSS ^ ' V P t0 1 ! 54 ' the democratic platform was like that of tbe 
Ss and upon W. ^ e & T U T f baSGleSS; Jt haS not on * P aiticle of &«* 
ttemJS «n^?» it ? *7 M the P latform erected bj those with whom the gen- 

fsr^ea?^ 

The first State Convention of the Black Republican party in Illinois adopted 
w a part of their platform the following resolution : »uopi*u 

anl^prevKam-^^'S^^^ 17 deni ^ d £f ^-organization of parties, and repudi*. 

£X 8 &£ e ZTZ V T cV crTit0 Z a ; ^ M the O^SSSS ^tSrSw SSS4S 

«y more t?rrZ^?e m T m ha8 f . e "^« Jurisdiction: and to £d£ tie acq" mnentTf 
«oy more territories unless the practice of slavery therein forever shall have been prohibited? 

,«i tlfe'ZV^f 01 ? 1 ? \ M VaS ^ W ° rd f0r Word ' b ^ tbe AllTOra Convention, 
Sor7*rlhi« ™ P f m » er ' J,? 54 '' aDd Similar solutions were everywhere 
adopted by these Black Republicans, with a further resolution "to support no 
man tor office under the General or State Government who was cot positively 
wd fully committed to the support of these principles, and whose personal 
. haiacter and conduct was a guarantee that he was reliable, and who shall not 
have abjured all party allegiance and ties." And does my colleague dare assert 
t?!i J D fl en \ ocratlc organization ever held such doctrines as these ? He spoke 
without reflection or without information, surely. 
Mr. NOETON. Does my colleague wish an answer? 

Mr. HARRIS. I did not ask my colleague a question. My colleague is ex- 
.wdingly uneasy m his seat. 6 

Mr. NORTON. "Will my colleague allow me to reply ? 

Mr. HARRIS. My colleague is excited and uneasy, and I am not all btw- 
prised at it, after making such assertions. 

Mr. NORTON". I understood my colleague to ask me a question, and I de- 
are to answer it. . . . . , 



11 

Mr. HARRIS. I have asked him various questions, and when he has under- 
Taken to answer them, has flown off upon other matters having nothing to do 
with the questions, and I am tired of indulging him in that sort of way. 

But the gentleman says, if the Missouri Compromise was repealed in 1850, 
*hy repeal it a^ain ! The gentleman will bear in mind that, in the Kansas- 
Nebraska bill, it is not "repealed." There is therein only a legislative declara- 
tion, that by the Compromise of 1850, the Missouri Compromise was superceded, 
and was, therefore, inoperative and void. It meets the exact question, and 
presents upon the face of the bill, what we declare outside of it. Th- 3 gentle- 
man went into an argument to show that it ought not to have been repealed in 
order to make it in conformity to the act of 1850. The gentleman will see that 
the two Territories could not be placed upon the same footing unless it was re- 
pealed, either by positive declaration, or by legislation which superceeded it. 
It is said that when we acquired the territory included in New Mexico and 
Utah it was free territory. I shall not discuss that point, but certain it is that 
the bills of 1850 provided "that the legislative power of the Territories (Utah 
«md New Mexico) shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation, consistent 
with the Constitution of the United States,'' slavery not excluded. That bill fur- 
ther provided, "that when admitted as States, the said Territories should be re- 
ceived into the Union with or without slavery as their constitutions should pro- 
scribe at the time of their admission." What more full and complete power 
frould the people of these territories have over the matter of slavery than i» 
conferred in this bilk subject to the Constitution! and yet, if the Missouri restric- 
tion, as my collegue contends, was in force in Kansas, will he sav that the peo- 
ple of Kansas could have had equal power, unless it was repealed or declared 
void? Certainly not; then it clearly follows, that in order to put Kansas and 
Nebraska upon the same footing with Utah and New Mexico, and to make the 
J legislation of 1854, conform to that of 1850, it was necessary to repeal, expressly 
or implication, the restriction of 1820 — if indeed that restriction had any vitality. 
If the territories were to be all placed upon the same footing, the restriction 
must have been taken off from them, if it had not been previously done. 

The gentleman quotes Mr. Richardson's speech to show that the Mexican 
law wa3 enforced in Utah a::d New Mexicio. He alludes also to the speech of Mr. 
Douglass. But these were simply expressions of legal opinions advanced 
upon the subject. But what do they say, and what have they said, all the time? 
That if these territories were free, if the laws of Mexico were enforced upon 
them, then it v>as uimeecessary to put on another restriction. It was simply for 
the purpose of predicating an argument against those who were acting with 
my colleague in advocating the "VTilmot proviso. It was one of the reasons 
which they advanced against a partial restriction in the legislation of the coun- 
try. Nothing more, and nothing less. 

The gentleman indulges in quite a ridiculous train of remarks in regard to 
squatter sovereigenty, and says there is no squatter soveringenty in the bill, 
taeause the President of the United States has power to appoint the Governor, 
*nd that some of the officers of the territory are not elected by the people. 
What does that argument amount to? The objection of my colleague to the bill 
is, not that the people have not popular sovereignity enough, but he objects that 
they have any at all. He is opposed to giving them any power whatever over 
their own affairs. It does not lie in his mouth to object that only a portion 
of power is given to the people of these territories, because he objects to then? 
having any pover. 

My colleague goes on to another point, and enlarges upon the mobs in Kansas, 
Sir, there have been mobs in Kansas ; but if there have been difficulties there, 
the blame lies at the door of those who act with my colleague. If blood has 
been shed upon the soil of Kansas, it lies upon the skirts and garments of him 
and his coadjutors, as I have already shown. Let them remember now, and in 
ail future time, that, when reason shall have resumed her throne, and excitement 
(ui d fanaticism shall have passed away, that judgment will be pronounced upon 
them, as the responsible parties for all these difficulties. 

My colleague makes a long harrangue about Lawrence being sacked. Talk 
about sacking a town because a house was burned by a mob! That is 'sacking 
a townl In nine cases out of ten where difficulties have occurred, they have 
not grown out of aggressive acts upon the part of the people of Missouri, but 
■nit of the acts committed by those who act under the auspices of the leaders of 



12 

the party to which my colleague belongs. Language has been strained to find 
terms to excite the public mind, and to mislead public opinion, and the terms 
which my colleague uses are part and parcel of that vocabulary which has been 
brought into requisition by those acting with him, to operate upon the public 
credulity. 

He refers to the report of the committee which was sent to Kansas. I would 
not give a snap of my finger for that testimony, so far as it ought to operate 
upon any unbiased mind. I had no confidence in the committee when it was 
raised, no confidence when they started, and less when they made their report. 
The gentleman says that emigrants had a right to go into Kansas to make it a 
free State. Well, sir, if they had a right to go there for that purpose, and that 
purpose alone, then he must not deny that emigrants had the right to go there 
for the purpose of making it a slave State. But, sir, emigrants ought to have 
gone to that territory as they have gone to Nebraska or to any other territory, 
and not for the purpose of effecting legislation, one way or another. But 
they not only went there for the purpose of controlling the legislation of the 
territory, but they have organized forces, and marched into the territory for 
the exclusive purpose of shaping the institutions. This is proof sufficient that 
all these difficulties have arisen from the actions of those who act with my col- 
league in the settlement of that territory. 

My colleague, if I understood him, made allusion to my own position in refer- 
ence to this question of slavery. Did my colleague refer to me ? 

Mr. NORTON. Does the gentleman desire an answer to that question, and 
does he yield me the floor for that purpose ? 

Mr. HARRIS. I only wish to know if the gentleman alluded to me. 

Mr. NORTON. I will state that I did allude to the gentleman. 

Mr. HARRIS. I heard only the closing part of the remark which a gentle- 
man sitting side of me said my colleague intended to apply to me. I will re- 
ply to it. He stated, if I heard aright, that I said in this House six years ago, 
that the passage of the Ordinance of 1787 and the Missouri Compromise were 
Southern measures. 

Mr. NORTON. The gentleman has asked me a question, but he allows me 
to answer only a part of it. I will say to him, that whatever I have said 
I have treated him with all due courtesy, as I do every one. 

Mr. HARRIS. I ask the gentleman if he alluded to me. 

Mr. NORTON. I shall not allow my colleague to put to me questions re- 
quiring categorical answers, unless he allows me to state — 

Mr. HARRIS. Then I shall not allow him to state. 

Mr. NORTON. The gentleman had commenced to say that — 

Mr. HARRIS. My question was a simple one. I simply asked him if he al- 
luded to me. 

Mr. NORTON. I merely made a quotation from my colleague's speech, in 
which he said that the Missouri Compromise measures received a majority of 
Southern votes. 

Mr. HARRIS. Yes, sir, my colleague made a "simple quotation," and I have 
asked him a simple question, and he has simply answered it ; and now I will 
respond. He undertook to say — and I suppose the report of his speech will 
contain what he said — that in the remarks which I made in the House six 
years ago, I stated that the Missouri Compromise was a Southern measure, and 
that the ordinance of 1787 received a majority of Southern votes. 

Mr. NORTON. No ; I did not speak of the ordinance of 1787 at all. I made 
a quotation which I requested Mr. Cumback to read, and which I will have in- 
serted in my printed speech ; and the force of your remarks was, that a majority 
of the Southern men voted for the Compromise of 1820. 

Mr. HARRIS. That is simply a matter of historical truth. I stated that 
such was the case. I did not, in that argument, either assail or justify the act 
I stated that such was a historical fact. That fact has been stated on this floor 
from all quarters, because it is a matter that everybody knows. I believed 
then that the passage of the Missouri restriction was wrong. I believe that it 
was the cause of all the trouble which the country has witnessed from the 



13 

slavery agitation since that day; and I defy any gentleman to show that any 
difficulty ever did exist, on the question of slavery, until this measure was 
sprung upon the country in 1818; and sir.ce that time, with but a short inter- 
val, it has been constant. I want to see an end of it. I want to go back to 
the early days of the Government — to the day3 when the fathers of the Re- 
public were in power — when they refused to incorporate any such principle 
into the legislation of the country. We have to go back to that ; we have 
gone back to it by the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and there, I hope, we shall re- 
main ; and I am sure that there we will remain. And when the excitement 
shall have passed away, when the whole country becomes settled down — as 
certainly it will settle down — receiving, confirming, and vindicating the prin- 
ciples of that bill, we will then have no more of this agitation about slavery 
in the territories. 

My colleague made an allusion here to a speech made by Judge Douglas in 
1849, in Springfield, Illinois. It has been quoted by every abolition stump- 
orator, from Maine to Iowa. It has been quoted by almost every speaker on 
this floor who has opposed the Nebraska bill. It has been published in italics, 
in Roman, and in capitals, and in every other type. In that speech it is alleged 
that he declared, " that the Missouri Compromise had an origin akin to that of 
the Constitution of the United States, and that it had become canonized in the 
hearts of the American people as a sacred thing, which no ruthless hand would 
ever be reckless enough to disturb." Now, sir, what are the facts? That dis- 
tinguished Senator entered Congress in 1843. He found the line of 36° 30' 
agreed upon as the dividing line between slave territory and non-slaveholding 
territory; and viewing it, as every candid and just mind then did, as a means 
of settlement whose whole value would depend upon its continued application 
to new territory as fast as acquired, until it should reach the Pacific ocean, he 
had favored its application to the territory of Texas. He had even acquiesced in 
its application to Oregon; and yet, in the winter of 1848-49, the legislature of 
Illinois passed instructions requiring him to abandon that line, and vote to pro- 
hibit slavery in all the Territories acquired from Mexico. He had looked upon 
the adoption of that parallel of latitude not as a mere imaginary line running over 
a waste of wild prairie, and a mere expedient for the use of a moment of peril ; 
he had supposed that it had been agreed upon as a principle for future appli- 
cation. It was true it had been disregarded by the people of the North already, 
on several occasions; but it seemed impossible that it should be spurned and 
spit upon, when it offered a means of settlement acceptable to the South and en- 
tirelyjust to the North. I think it was a great error ever to have agreed upon 
a geographical line to divide upon a principle; but if acquiesced in, it might, in 
1848, have been extended to the Pacific ocean, and settled at once and forever 
the whole territorial difficulty about slavery. But the North refused. They 
rejected their own measure again, and determined to prohibit slaveiy by Con- 
gressional intervention in all the vast regions of California and New Mexico lying 
south as well as north of 36° 30.' 

The Legislature of Illinois followed the example of most of the other North- 
ern States, and instructed for that measure. It was in the fall of 1849 that 
Judge Douglas addressed the people of Illinois, in Springfield, in opposition to 
these resolutions. He vindicated his then former support of the Missouri line, 
and criticised the policy of those in the Legislature who proposed to abandon 
it for the policy of universal prohibition. He was then calling in question such 
men as my colleague — who had abandoned, rejected, and stricken down the 
Missouri line. Yours were the ruthless hands that had been reckless enough to 
disturb it — not his. You freesoilers, you abolitionists of the North, had un- 
canonized that act — your ruthless and unhallowed hands had stricken it down — 
you were the men that he then accused of that disgraceful perfidy — and yet 
after you had done it, you turn round, and with that dissimulation, hypocracy, 
and falsehood that characterizes all your acts and all your speeches, you accuse 
him of being guilty of doing that for which he then stamped you upon the 
forehead with the mark of Cain. You had murdered the peace of your coun- 
try. He was then and there making that very charge upon you, and you felt 
its force — the people felt it, and the next legislature turned round and repealed 
the obnoxious instructions, against the vote of my colleague — the vote stand- 
ing in the House fifty ayes and fifteen noes— my colleague being in the nega- 
tive, and for disapproving the line of the Missouri restriction. 



14 



fcofnt?* T??^ Wil1 ? J collea g™ Mow rae to ask him one question at thi« 
ftft^aftSS^ 1 U ° derstand tha * ver y **"• My colleague ie simply wrong 

T-ed ISlSotf SiPF other ' The rcsolutioiis of ?*wr « 

Mr. NORTON. That is my recollection. 

offn^wS" 1^4 f 7 C0 J lea S ue is ™ n g «g to the date of the resolution 
ol instiuction as in all his other statesments. The resolutions of instruM?,^ 
were passed in the winter of 1848-49. In the fall of 1849 JuXe Do u las ^n 
there and made that speech; and the speech, showing the Serin whSS 
slavery restrictiomsts had stricken doW that line SkESS 
such conviction to the people, that the next legislature, elected Si follow im 
yea, turned round and rescinded them by the vote I have stated. ^ 

But my colleague says that Judge Douglas, in that speech, declared that the 
Missouri restriction had "its origin in the hearts of a 1 patriotic rnen-th a 
had an origin akin to the Constitution; and that it was a sacred tE that Vo 
ruthless hand would ever be reckless enough to disturb." j££ Ski 

SSSrS"* Th L G r ?°A er > & V™*™ — fc of tlmt speech ??Lgeht 
mingled up the remarks of Judge Douglas upon the restriction of 1 R2n 3 
Compromise of Mr. CUy, of 1821. But, ^taS^TK^Sfilfc 
on that occasion was, substantially, that it was an error to cSh n for Mr ru 
the authorship of the line of restriction of 1S20 ; that the onpon nts of Mr CH- 
had asserted that that honor (if honor it was) was due to otl e?"aTwell as to §£ 
that it was urged by opponents of Mr. Clay "that it had its origin akin ■ o hat 
of the Constitu ion." He asserted „o such thing himself, and no reptrt of ha 

difate'tW « 1' ri ? Y l^T ° f pubhc °P inion a ' * Aa * <% seemed to in- 

dicate that this Compromise had become canonized in the hearts of the Ameri 
can people as a sacred thing, which no ruthless hand would e-er be reckS 

thaTIu " t2 He Wa f r* ld ^. of «" "evidences of public opLfon a 
that day. He made no such declaration as expressive of his own sentiments 
and no man can show it from that speech, or any other he ever uttfered 2d 

de'nce", ien i r r aS ° Uln ? ^V^ *fa> ■**»•«•* had SS^dSL 4v 

deuces of public opinion"-because the Legislature of his State had indicated 
that tt was not "canonized in the hearts of the American people and became 
thnr ruthless hands had been reckless enough to disturb it." He mad, no? uc h 
declarations for himself. He was quoting the arguments of others, and show™. 

fr»JT Ql ? S teUd Z Cy °{ th - eir acte And y^t this speech of his has Ten 
garbled, and perverted, and misstated and falsined-liklevery thing eli that 
he has said, for the purpose of creating prejudice against him and iif princi^ 
he has supported. But the attempt has failed. You might as well Vxpect a 

fSirlr™ 1 '? to fr^ dow f a mi ^ ° ak > ™ men iike »* Sia?Kd 

linnets character, principles, and position of the Senator C 

Now sir, my colleague has made some general declarations as to the views 

heldt D hTsrni;n. imn016 ' ^ ^ ## "J*** *-* * * ^SR 

Mr. NORTON. The Convention of my Congressional district 

Mr. HARRIS Very well; I do not care what it was. It was a convention 

that occurred there six years ago, and under the auspices of that i enegad and 

demagogue and scoundrel, John Wentworth-rotten himself and co^untS 

every one who goes about him. Sir, the Democratic party of a StatTof if 

country, is not to be judged by the resolutions of a precinct, town or count 

convention. The State Conventions of the Illinois Democracy, m "'of the na 

tional Democracy, have never adopted a resolution which they would wit] o 

recall, or which conflicts with their present position-nothing of which anv 



15 

patriot in the Union, South or North, could complain. Their principles sr* 
grounded upon the Constitution, and are as unshaken as the rock of eternal 
truth. Their opponents may dash themselves against these immutable princi- 
ples, but it will result only in their own destruction. They are like the set 
birds, as Holmes describes them, dashing themselves against the stony sides of & 
light-house : 

" The little eea birds, blinded by the storms, 
On some tall light-house dash their little forms ; 
And the rude granite scatters, for their pains, 
The small deposits that were meant Car brains ; 
Yet the proud fabric, in the morning sun, 
Stands all unconscious of the mischief done. 
Still the red beacon pours its evening rays 
For the lo3t traveller with as bright a blaze ; 
Nay, shines all radiance o'er the scattered fleet 
Of gulls and boobies brainless at its feet." 

But, sir, my colleague has formally announced to the country that he is for 
Fremont for the Presidency. He has given us no reasons for casting the immense 
weight of his name and influence and oratory in favor of the great "court mar- 
tialed" and the "little cashiered." But the world will doubtless hear them in 
due time. It is a fortunate thing that all men can vote for whom they please. 
But let me tell my colleague that his candidate will be rejected by the people & 
thousand times more indignantly than my colleague was by his own party a 
few weeks ago. And let me say to him, that if Mr. Fillmore remains in the field, 
Mr. Buchanan will heat his Mariposa Marquis 50,000 votes in Bliuois. 

Mr. NORTON. Your hand upon that 

Mr. HARRIS. My colleague can have my hand upon that, and he can hav* 
money too, if he wants it (Laughter.) "Why, sir, my colleague seems to know 
nothing of Illinois, outside of his own Congressional district, where his own party 
have beaten him for renoraination, with the foulest abolitionist in the State, 
But, I can tell my colleague, that there are parts even in northern Illinois, wher* 
Mr. Fillmore, if he remains in the field, will receive more votes than his candi- 
date; and in central and southern Illinois, the masses utterly repudiate his Phila- 
delphia hybrid nominee. A portion of the old line Whigs there will, if Mr. 
Fillmore remains in the field, support him. If he withdraws they will be with 
us. Mr Fillmore is a citizen of large and long experience in public affairs. J 
am utterly opposed to his views of "Americanism," and many of his doctrine? 
of public policy. But he is open in these views and doctrines, and we know 
where he stands; while Fremont, without any experience, except in robbing 
others of their well-earned laurels, and appropriating them to himself, and in 
plundering the Government by false accounts and false vouchers ; and while he 
and his friends are courting the vote of the foreign-born citizens, he and they 
are in secret affiliation with the whole Northern Know Nothing organization, 
whose lodges and councils have endorsed his nomination, and pledged themselves 
to his support. Down with such truckling tricksters. 

But I will not pursue this subject If my colleague prefers to vote for this 
Know Nothing, Abolition, Indian-beef, Government plundering Marquis of 
Mariposa, so be it. His company in Illinois will be small, if not select ; and let me 
tell my colleague, that the $100,000 which the purse-holders of the Fremoni 
corruption fund have appropriated to carry Illinois will fail of its object ; and 
were it swelled to $100,000,000 it would fad to corrupt the people of that nobl« 
State into the support of his candidate. 

Mr. NORTON. I understood my colleague to say that I had invested 
$100,000 in the coming election in Illinois. I beg to say to my colleague, that 
if I had that amount of money, I should not not be fool enough to invest it is 
any political matter. 

Mr. HARRIS. I have no doubt my colleague would not in any such foolish 
attempt as this. He is too keen a yankee to invest his own money for any 
such hopeless object. 

Mr. NORTON. I understood my colleague to say that I had invested 
$100,000 in the Illinois election. 

Mr. HARRIS. Oh, no, my colleague is too smart for that, by far. 
Mr. NORTON.> Did I understand the gentleman correctly! 

\ 



16 



MY HARRIS No sir, I did not say that. I said that I understood $100,000 
bad kS Illinois 'by tbe party to which my colleague belongs to carry 
the election in that State for Fremont. But, sir, I can tell my colleague and 
those Sting with him, that it will be in vain. The Abolition party » not yet 
rich enoueh to buy the independent voters of Illinois. 

Sir mv time is "exhausted but before I close let me ask, what good has the 
elave^V iitS which has convulsed the country for the last thirty years, ao- 
comShS? It has brought the North and the South into collision, by attempts 
toTuWere' with it in the States and Territories. And if any gentleman can 
coin out onT particle of good intermixed with the world of evil that it has 
Srodueed I wil concede it an excuse for its continuance. But there is none- 
none whatever. And now, for the first time in the history of our nation, has a 
Snal T geographical party, arisen-stauding upon a sectional p.atfom ^ and 
appeXVto sectional pride, passion, and prejudice, to, elect a sectional Pres - 
dent To brim? about this state of things, you have stimulated passion by as- 
iults upon your Southern brethren; you have proclaimed your higher law 
do ctrinc* P uJ have instigated and countenanced resistance to the laws and con« 
SS^uSorities of the country, acting in obedience to the Constitution ; un- 
der he Xe of freedom of speech, you have indu ged in licentiousness and 
mobbed g and put down those who uttered opinions m conflict with vourown. 
You have thus instigated and stimulated a spirit of insubordination, bordering 
noon rebel ion which has emended itself until it has arrayed a sectional party 
?nthe North pledged to make war^unending and mortal war-not only upon 
\l t-S of one-half of the country, but upon the Constitution— the bond 
* e ^™™£iZm™?\xo***<J: TheJe are but the baby figures of 
that crownig "iant of discord which threatens the destruction of our Union. 

HefeTir fet us pause andlisten. A warning voice comes to lis from the sacred 
.hades of Mount Vernon, where lie entombed the holy ashes of Washington: 

«The unity of this Government ^^^^^^S^X^V^^^^A 
so highly prize." * . * nowerfullv they address themselves to your sensibility, 

ving the Union of the whole." disturb our Union it occurs as a matter of serious 

An contemplating the causeswMc h .^ °^XLfiha?acteSg parties by geograhical 
concern, that any ground ^I^^^SIn^estern ; whenre designin-g men may 
diBeri^attoBS-4or*eTp .and f^^^%^i of local interests and views-one of 
endeavor to excite a belief that . ,bt , r „ fl ' ^ „;, i, reticular districts is to misrepresent the 
the expedients of party to acquire influence w '»'» n P™£fel d yourselves too much against 

OPINIONS AND AIMS OF "? 0THBB a D '>™ C ™Vi n l ^ ^^ ^ 



TION." 



Jit. 

God grant that we may heed these solemn warnings, and thua preserve our 
Union and independence forever. 



146 



A 






• "•" <y Hi,. 



* • / 1' 






■V 






1 * JR 






^ 



-•• ^ A* *' v "' 



^ O o 



x# 






:• ^°%. 



^ c 



* < 



^>:- V , c .c^«-. v,/ ^>^;^ V.< 






r 



'° -ask. °- <** .^ \ c»* .^it *°. 



\ 



• o 



<vN 



.V .g** V^ % a* V •.£*.« ^ 

•0« 










V 






4 . ty'^^^J.S© • »0 «■• * J^Si^^n * A. O 






♦bK 



.V 



6 /•'* 






UtRT 
SOOKBINCXNC 

Crantnlle Pa 
jan Feb 1989 



!-*-> 






^x> <i 



. * A <**••► * A° 

^* . ^ ^z^^.% V , c , 



